POLITICAL DIARY

New Delhi, 3 November 2007

Katnataka & Governor’s Role

PLAYING THE CENTRE’S CHAPRASI

By Poonam I Kaushish

Public life in India has hit a rotten disgusting low. Free India hasn’t seen or experienced anything like the goings-on of the past fortnight in Karnataka. And how developments there continue to deteriorate from bad to worse. Today, it is a stinking example of the murder of democratic morals and principles at high noon on a busy crossing! All to attain power and yet more power. And, at any cost. All else be damned!

Tragically, the continuing charade being played out in Bangalore and Delhi has once again brutally exposed two highly reprehensible facets of our rulers’ democratic temper. At the political level, governance is shamelessly all about cutting deals, side deals and underhand deals. At the Constitutional level, the Governor has been reduced to being the Centre’s chaprasi.

Think. From the “worst ever betrayal” by the conspiring father-son Gowda duo to becoming ‘bhai-bhai’ once again for the sake of power, both the BJP and Janata Dal (S) have come a long way. Brought about by the former Prime Minister and JD supremo Deve Gowda through a dramatic U turn after he came to know that the Congress was two-timing him --- by simultaneously talking to him and his party’s rebel leader Prakash. Faced with the prospect of a Congress-backed government, the BJP too did a U turn to join hands with the ‘betrayers’ again. Never mind, the continuing mistrust and the 12-point charter of demands set out by Deve Gowda.

What should one say of the Governor Rameshwar Thakur’s role? Suffice it to state that it has been over a week since the BJP-JD(S) coalition in the State paraded 129 MLAs, which is more than half of the 225-member Assembly, at Bangalore’s Raj Bhawan in the hope that he would revoke President's rule and swear-in a BJP-led coalition Government.

Nothing of the sort. Instead, of doing the Constitutional right thing of reviving the suspended State Assembly and asking the BJP-JD to prove their majority on the floor of the House, as opined by the Supreme Court in the landmark SR Bommai judgment, Thakur stated that he had to “consult the Centre.” Why? He had to take instructions from his mai-baaps in Delhi on what to do next. Just as his fellow Congressmen Governors Buta Singh and Syed Sibtey Razi had done two years ago in Bihar and Jharkhand. Forgetting, that they too had got a sharp rap from the Apex Court which led to Buta Singh’s ignominious exit.

Also, most oddly, thereafter Governor Thakur, sent a ‘statement of facts’ to New Delhi rather than ‘his report’ and recommendation. His reported contention that the BJP-JD(S) formation could lead to “horse-trading of the worst kind,” is as shocking as Buta Singh’s report based on “hearsay” read bazaar gossip. Not only that. He continues to wait for instructions from Delhi. No matter that the jo hukam darbari Thakur is crossing the lakshman rekha of constitutional propriety and violating all norms by his outrageous and unprecedented actions.

True, the Centre's brazen vacillation may have been influenced partially by Deve Gowda’s letter of 24 October to Thakur urging dissolution of the Assembly and calling for fresh elections. It could also be because of JD rebel Prakash’s factor or the JD’s new charter of demands to the BJP, which raises a big question mark over the stability of the coalition.

Either way it matters little. The issue is not whether Thakur invites the BJP-JD combine to form a Government or dissolves the Assembly for fresh polls. It is all about the role of the Governor, his qualifications and Constitutional obligations and duties. Or, should one say, politicization of this high Constitutional office. Questionably, are they the Centre’s chaprasis? Or, are they the keepers of the people’s faith as heads of their respective States?

All seem to have forgotten that the true function of the Governor is not just to represent the Centre but, as the Head of State, serve his people and fight their battle with the Centre and not vice versa. He has to bear in mind the overall national interest, not partisan party interests. He has to be in tune not with the party in power at the Centre, but with his own people.

The Constitution empowers him to influence the decisions of an elected Government by giving him the right “to be consulted, to warn and encourage”. His role is overwhelmingly that of a “friend, philosopher and guide” to his Council of Ministers with unrivalled discretionary powers. A lot more than those of the President.

As noted by the Sarkaria Commission and endorsed by the Supreme Court, the Governor’s role is that of “a Constitutional sentinel and that of vital link between the Union and the State… Being the holder of an independent Constitutional office, the Governor is not a subordinate or subservient agent of the Union Government.”

Tragically, however, successive governments at the Centre have successfully used, abused and debased this high office by reducing Governors to the position of the Centre’s chaprasis nee kathputlis, ever ready to destablise the ship of the State, if so desired by New Delhi. Most have no qualms of conscience in rubbishing it in personal or party interest, barring honourable examples such as Karnataka’s erstwhile Governor Dharam Vira, who refused to take orders even from Indira Gandhi!

Clearly, the office of the Governor has been unabashedly politicized over the past two decades. Times out of number, the Governor has acted as a pawn of his political masters. Overlooking the letter and spirit of the Constitution. But none has done what Thakur did: acted as a police inquisitor and openly asserted that he had to “consult” the Centre before making his recommendations

.

Thus the Governors today have become a convenient tool in the hands of the Centre to run Opposition-ruled States by proxy. By playing the I-spy game---petty politicking, gross interference and open partisanship at the Centre’s behest. Even using a minor law and order problem to impose Central rule on the State. Bluntly, make life hell for the Chief Minister and use him as a springboard for returning to active politics.

Alas, gone are the days of Nehru, who is now regrettably considered by many, including Congressmen, as obsolete on the ground that times have changed and his was another world! As India’s first Prime Minister, he laid emphasis on the integrity, merit and stature of the Governor. He said: “I think it would be infinitely better if he was not so intimately connected with local politics of the province or with the factions of the province.”

Nehru believed that it would be desirable to have as Governor’s “eminent people” who had not taken too great a part in politics. Remember, he handpicked Dr. Zakir Hussain, an eminent educationist, for the Governorship of Bihar and thereafter had him installed as India’s Vice President.

Sadly, his daughter Inidra Gandhi changed the rules of the game. Politicians close to her were rewarded with plum postings. She successfully used gubernatorial appointments as bait to get bureaucrats to do at her bidding. For the first time, even a former Chief Election Commissioner and retired intelligence and police officers came to occupy Raj Bhawans.

In fact, many of the appointments were so brazen that the Supreme Court was constrained to order in 1979: “The Governor’s office is not subordinate or subservient to the Government of India.  He is not amenable to the directions of the Government of India nor is he accountable to them for the manner in which he carries out his duties. This is an independent Constitutional office which is not subject to the control of the Government of India…”

Trust India’s self-serving polity to trash this to the dustbin of history. Be it the Congress, Janata Dal, United Front, NDA and, now the UPA. Sadly, over 60 per cent of the present Governors are active politicians or defeated and discredited netas and the rest ‘pliable’ retired bureaucrats, police officers and Army Generals. Today, the Governor largely functions as a lackey of the Centre, ever ready to destabilize the ship of the State.

All political parties lament the decline of the crucial institution of the Governor when out of office. Tragically, however, they merrily misuse and abuse the office for personal and party ends when in office, as did the NDA before the UPA. Not only does this generate bad blood between Lilliputian politicians but, in its wake, denigrates the Constitution and undermines India’s unity and integrity.

The harsh truth is that the office of the Governor is in shambles and is no longer playing its key role as envisaged by the founding fathers. It has to be revamped and restored to its old glory with assured tenures. It is the time to rise above politics and appoint neutral non-political Governors. As long as the Centre continues to play petty, partisan politics, India and its unity will be greatly hurt. The Governor must not be reduced to the level of a glorified chaprasi!  ---- INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)                     

POLITICAL DIARY

New Delhi, 19 October 2007

Karunandhi Has Lost It

Polity Plays Football With Constitution

By Poonam I Kaushish

India’s top leaders seem to have developed an uncanny knack of making confusion worse confounded. First we had Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh bombarding us about the great benefits of the Indo-US nuclear deal. Then we were suddenly lectured on the coalition dharma and how the survival of the Government was more important than the ‘nuclear’ good of the country. Now we have the DMK supremo Karunanidhi shooting his mouth off on the Constitution. Leaving one wondering whether he should at all be taken seriously.

On Monday last, the octogarian Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu asserted out of the blue: “Our Constitution has been changed many times…We need a new Constitution in the era of coalitions…The country should look towards a federal form of government in the true sense….. What should be done is that all shortcomings of the Constitution should be addressed in one sitting. That is what I feel.”

Clearly, Karunanidhi seems to have gone senile and lost it, as some of his leading critics are saying. There are no other words to describe this ridiculous and asinine suggestion. Which sensible, mature and responsible leader would speak in such a highly immature and irresponsible manner on the Constitution which is the bedrock of our parliamentary democracy? And demand that India should get a new Constitution in one sitting! Never before has anyone heard something so stupid and shocking.

Is the Constitution a football which can be kicked around here, there and anywhere? And, pray, by whom? Our self-serving and opportunistic polity? Can it be mindlessly dumped, if it does not fit into our rulers’ scheme of things? Or, rewritten, reconsidered and amended yet again? Why? Just because the Constitution does not fit into Karunanidhi’s latest agenda? Or just because he has mastered the art of blackmailing and arm-twisting his UPA allies to get his way even at the cost of the country.

What “federal structure” is he talking about? Does he know that the word “federal” does not occur anywhere in the Constitution? Does he know that India is a Union of States and an amendment changing it to a “federation of States” was promptly rejected by the Constituent Assembly. India’s founding fathers, unlike Karunanidhi, had but one concern: how to ensure the country’s unity?

Look at the ludicrousness of his suggestion. “It would take one sitting of a Constituent Assembly.” Really? Does the DMK supremo have a clue abut what it means to frame a Constitution? That India’s Constitution took over five years to frame and that too when it had the benefit of the advice of top constitutional experts. Who racked their brain and spent minutes, hours and days debating on where even a comma should be placed in a particular clause, leave alone the Article itself. Placement of a mere comma can change the entire meaning and emphasis of what is sought to be done.

Moreover, Karunanidhi has forgotten that the erstwhile BJP-led NDA Government had set up a 11-member National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution headed by former Chief Justice of India Venkatachaliah in 2000. Does he remember that he and his DMK were part and parcel of the Vajpayee Government? And that the Union Cabinet, which included DMK Ministers, had also considered its voluminous 1976 pages report, in two volumes, containing 249 recommendations.

The Justice Venkatachaliah Commission could not have been weightier. Others included the then Law Commission Chairman B.P. Jeevan Reddy, Attorney-General Soli Sorabjee, former Supreme Court Judge who headed a Commission on Centre-State relations R.S. Sarkaria, former Attorney-General K. Parasaran, former Speaker of the Lok Sabha P.A. Sangma, former Secretary-General of the Lok Sabha Subhash Kashyap and former Ambassador to the United States Abid Hussain.

The objective of the exercise was to ensure that the tenets of democracy --- government of the people, by the people and for the people --- were practiced in letter and in spirit. Encompassing stable governments both at the Centre and in the States, improving the quality of our netagan, ensuring that the Executive was strong, capable and willing to resolve major problems, and, most important, to establish the Rule of Law and usher in transparency and accountability.

The Commission made many good recommendations. It wanted the Fundamental Rights to be enlarged to include the freedom of the Press, the right to elementary education, the right to privacy and the right against torture. The right to religious freedom was made “non-suspendable.” It favoured greater decentralization in Centre-State relations and recommended minimum use of Article 356. It also mooted the setting up of a National Judicial Commission to oversee the conduct of  judges.

Importantly, it advocated that the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister be directly elected by the Lok Sabha and the Assembly to obviate the need to test majorities in the Rashtrapati Bhawan or in a Raj Bhawan and combat horsetrading. It also mooted changes in laws governing elections and political parties. It wanted that only candidates who secured 50 per cent plus one vote of the popular mandate should stand elected. If necessary, another poll should be held between the first two.

Tragically, the Commission’s recommendations were never brought before Parliament and were consigned to the dustbin of history. What the NDA and Vajpayee needed to do was to convene a special session of both Houses of Parliament, akin to a full-fledged Constituent Assembly to debate and dissect the Commission’s report. Following which, the recommendations should have been thrown for a national debate, involving legal luminaries and thinking public. Crib all one might but sadly, the same fate was meted out to the Sarkaria Committee report on Centre-State Relations by the then Congress regime. It too was dumped.

Now adding insult to injury, the Congress-led UPA Government, comprising again the DMK, set up in May last yet another Commission to review the entire gamut of Centre-State relations. The three-member panel is headed by former Chief Justice of India MM Punchhi. No matter that the Sarkaria Commission had undertaken the same exercise two decades ago.

This new Commission will not only examine and review the existing arrangements between the Union and the States but also go into a highly controversial areas: (i) the role, responsibility and jurisdiction of the Centre vis-à-vis States during major and prolonged outbreaks of communal and caste violence. (ii) setting up a Central Law Enforcement Agency to take up suo moto investigation of serious crimes that have serious inter-state/ international national security implications.

That apart, Karunanidhi has gone wholly wrong when he advocates that the Constitution should provide for a “true federal form.” He needs to remember some basics facts. India is an independent sovereign republic and a Union of States, not a federal republic like Germany or a federal state like the USA. The Constituent Assembly rejected a motion seeking to designate India as a “Federation of States”. The reason? The Indian Union is indestructible but not its constituent states; their identity can be altered and even obliterated. This is a crucial departure from a classical federal feature.

India’s largely uninformed leaders, including Karunanidhi and Union Ministers, do not seem to understand a basic difference between a classical federal set-up and one that is not. The word “federal” implies a polity in which sovereign independent states voluntarily surrender a defined part of their sovereignty to forge a federation for larger collective good, even as they retain control over their own affairs and their political identity and integrity through a perpetual covenant. Moreover, the constituent states often retain constitution-making rights of their own.

This is simply not the case with India, which was one whole under the British Raj. True, there were 500 and more princely states. But, as we all know, they were indirectly ruled by the British under the overall umbrella of paramountcy. Thus, what we witnessed in India was not a case of sovereign states coming together to form a federation. But just the obverse. We were one country, the Union of India, dividing its vast territory into provinces, redesignated as states.

All in all, we must stop talking mindlessly of a new Constitution and India as a federal polity and federalism. The next time Karunanidhi chooses to shoot his mouth, he would be well advised to heed the Father of the Constitution Ambedkar’s pertinent observation: “A good Constitution in the hands of bad people becomes a bad Constitution. A bad Constitution in the hands of good people becomes a good Constitution.” Much ultimately depends upon how “We the People”, who gave ourselves the Constitution, choose to work it. ----- INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)                      

POLITICAL DIARY

New Delhi, 13 October 2007

Win 150 Seats, Run Riot

WANTED A COALITION DHARMA

By Poonam I Kaushish

“The worst thing in this world after anarchy is government.” Henry Ward Beecher, who made the quip, was, indeed, a futurologist. He seems to have had India of 2007 in mind when he uttered these brilliant words. Which so aptly describe the high voltage drama that is being enacted on India’s political chessboard, especially during the last three months. Will the Left divorce the Congress and withdraw support to the UPA Government? Or will Sonia-Manmohan continue to serenade Comrade Karat with hum saath saath hain? Will allies RJD’s Laloo and NCP’s Sharad Pawar prevail and ensure there is no snap poll?

Think. Isn’t it ridiculous that a country as vast as India and boasting off a billion-and-growing population is swinging like a yo-yo between hope and despair, thanks to the fracas between partners. Why? Because the Congress which heads the Government has only 145 MPs in a 545 member Lok Sabha. To survive it needs the support of 272 Lok Sabha MPs. Together with its allies of “like-minded” regional secular parties like the RJD and NCP they total 219 MPs. Thus, the UPA Government desperately depends for its survival on the Left parties and its 62 MPs.

What makes the present situation at once bizarre and tragic is that it takes around only 150 seats for any one party to capture the power gaddi called India Raj and rule the roost! Raising a moot point once again: Can a coalition Government work in a country as diverse, multi-cultural and individualistic as we are? Is our polity mature enough to handle taciturn partners and provide good, clean governance? Is there a dharma which binds UPA’s comrades-in-arms together? Or is it a case of brazen opportunitism and shameless self-interest?

Take the first. Coalitions have worked at the Centre and some states. The BJP-led NDA Government completed its five-year term at the Centre, after two-aborted attempts. The Left Front Governments in West Bengal have been most stable Governments all along since 1977. Similarly, Kerala has experienced successive coalition Governments belonging alternately to the LDF and the UDF. These have lasted longer, even full term, than coalition Governments in other states. The BJP-Shiv Sena government completed its five-year term in Maharashtra.

However, we also have instances wherein between 1967 and July 1968, as many as 10 Governments were formed in the four states of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab and West Bengal. The BJP and BSP came together in holy matrimony thrice to form Governments in UP. But each attempt ended disastrously in 1995, 1997 and 2000. What to say of Karnataka’s squabbling partners which has led to President’s rule in the State for the sixth time.

Two, in a coalition milieu which entails reasonable give-and-take and unavoidable compromises our polity is still to mature. Bogged down as it is with tantrums, one-upmanship and clash of egos. Especially in a scenario where polarization now is based on vote-bank politics and unbridled lust for power and money --- not on values, ethics or common agenda. Forget good, clean governance and national interest.

Look at the inexplicable configurations of the UPA. The enemies and friends are all rolled into one. The Congress and the Left parties, which account for 64 seats in the Lok Sabha are arch rivals in three states: West Bengal, Kerala and Tripura. Both have been fighting each other tooth and nail in every election since Independence. Yet they came together and became partners at the Centre. Simply to keep the “communal BJP” out. Both have worked on the dictum that my enemy’s enemy is my friend. The Congress and RJD are arch rivals in Bihar and Jharkhand and the NCP cannot see eye-to-eye with the Congress in Maharashtra. Ditto the case down South with the DMK & Co.

Three, when it comes to coalition dharma, the less said the better. Suffice is to say that even thieves are agreed on a code of conduct. Most of the deals by India Inc are done on the basis of zuban (word). This should hold equally true in the case of coalition Governments. There should be a dharma between coalition partners and this should be scrupulously followed by all. A lakshman rekha which the allies adhere to honestly. Alas, this is more a dictum than the rule. No matter, Sonia Gandhi’s talk of “dharma of coalition” which, she said, was “to work together, try and understand and accommodate each others views.”

Great rhetoric indeed. More so as in reality the obverse holds true. Take the UPA again. The Prime Minister has little control over his Cabinet colleagues, especially those belonging to his allies who have been allotted Ministries on the basis of their party’s respective strength in the Lok Sabha. Worse, there is no such thing as collective responsibility. Not to talk about accountability and transparency, which are a far cry. The Ministers can do what they want. Ride roughshod and even treat their ministries as their personnel fiefdoms. The PM can do nothing except lump it. Look how Union Health Minister Ramdoss, who belongs to the itsy-bitsy PMK, continues to play havoc with India’s premier health institute, AIIMS.

More. The recent shenanigans of the JD(S) father-son duo of Deve Gowda and Kumaraswamy in Karnataka says it all. After lording over the State for 20-months, Kumaraswamy unabashedly reneged on his agreement to hand over power to the BJP’s Yediyurappa. Naturally, the BJP withdrew support and the Centre imposed President’s rule. Clearly, in being clever by half the Gowdas’ not only lost power but will have to live with the ignominy of being dubbed as “shameless betrayers.” A classic case of an ally biting off more than it could chew and cutting its nose to spite the face.

Characteristically, each party blames the others for not giving the people yearning for good governance a remedy for this state of anarchy. Some even put the onus on the aangootha chaap janata for the fractured verdicts. Sadly, none wants to pause and ponder over the long-term ramifications of this state of affairs. Consequently, our experiments with coalition Governments continue to get unstuck time and again, thanks to mindlessness.

Some may be tempted to argue that the common man has consciously opted for instability. With the aim of unleashing a churning process which might throw up new forces of change. Already, this social churning has manifested itself in the post-Mandalised era. The backward classes and the minorities have discovered the power of their vote and concluded that their sectional interests are best served when there is political uncertainty. In other words, they have outrightly rejected the national parties and opted for new outfits which are unencumbered by history and ideological baggage.

This has radically changed the structure of the polity and consequently the nature of viable and effective alternatives, as reflected in the multiplicity of over 26 odd regional, small or minor parties. With the national parties losing their clout to the regional satraps there is a very high premium on these parties which get traded and horsetraded many times over. The trading is made easier by the total collapse of the moral fabric of the political parties in their naked lust for the gaddi.

This Achilles heel of the national parties has provided a perfect handle to the regional parties to blackmail, bully and extort their demands from them, especially from those ruling at the Centre. Matters have been made worse by the fact that they could pull the rug off over any flimsy issue and expose the feet of clay of these parties. Consequently, the regional satraps are now beginning to flex their muscle for setting the agenda for India and even becoming the master of the house.

The BSP’s Mayawati makes no bones that her next target is New Delhi and it’s Prime Ministership. It is not an empty boast given our fractured polity. All she needs are 50 seats and the backing of a national party to come up trumps. Thus, regional formations like the TDP, JD, DMK, NCP and Trinamool have neither the time nor inclination for the BJP’s Hindutva or the Congress brand of politics. Besides, unlike the national parties, the regional outfits have a unified command structure and a share of power in the State.

Unfortunately, the national parties have been caught in a web of their own making. By pandering and giving in to the blackmail of these regional vote banks. They have created a Frankenstein over which they have no control. Aspirations can be trampled, but the thumb that affixes the vote can’t be amputated. Leading to the continuing aberration. Even in the dynamics of politics in the present fragmented state, there will be an inherent compulsion for the parties to remain together, so as to be a recognizable force. True, numbers will decide who sits on the Delhi gaddi. But it remains to be seen whether individual egos will get the better of collective wisdom.

In sum, one hopes this political game of kiss and tell based on convenience and opportunism does not reflect the emerging truth of today’s India. Our polity needs to face the harsh reality that national interest urgently requires a coalition dharma that ensures good and honest governance on the basis of public morality and principles. Our polity must not reduce itsef to a level of Gharib ki joru, sab ki Bhabhi! --- INFA

 (Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)                    

POLITICAL DIARY

New Delhi, 6 October 2007

Tamil Nadu Defiance Irks Court

FREEDOM FROM BANDHS ---- AT LAST?

By Poonam I Kaushish

Your freedom ends where my nose begins. This truism once again came to life when Tamil Nadu ‘shut down’ on Monday last. Thanks to a bandh called by the ruling DMK supremo and Chief Minister Karunanidhi to pressurize the Centre to expedite work on the controversial Sethusamudram Project. So what if it crippled life, inconvenienced the aam aadmi, brought the State machinery to a grinding halt, knocked out the concept of good governance and earned the wrath of the Supreme Court. Wherein in a first-of-its-kind observation the Court threatened to recommend imposition of President Rule in the State in case the State Government defied its order, resulting in a breakdown of the Constitution.

Predictably all hell broke loose. The polity yelled blue murder and came down like a ton of bricks on what they termed as judicial activism and encroachment into the powers of the Executive. The media too went to town with some in Chennai trying to be more loyal than the DMK king. The legal fraternity busied itself with dissecting and analyzing the Apex Court observations. Had the judiciary overstepped its bounds? Did it have the powers to recommend dismissal of a State Government and imposition of the President’s rule? Or merely advise the Centre to look into it?

Needless to say, Tamil Nadu has thrown up several Constitutional issues and, importantly for the aam aadmi, once again brought the issue of bandhs sharply on the national radar. True as jurists from former Chief Justices of the Supreme Court PN Bhagwati and JS Verma to ex-Attorney General of India Soli Sorabjee and senior advocates like KK Venugopal have stated, it is nobody’s case that the Apex Court has the powers either to dismiss a State Government, dissolve a duly elected legislative assembly and impose President’s rule, which the Executive alone is empowered to do.

In case the Supreme Court is of the opinion that there is a Constitutional breakdown, according to Bhagwati, it can surely advise the Government to look into it. But, according to Verma, the Court’s function is essentially to adjudicate on the constitutionality of President’s Rule. In fact, he has also clarified the reason why the Constitution did not empower the Court with this power. Article 356 empowers only the President to issue orders to impose President’s rule. This has to ratified by both the Houses of Parliament within 60 days of its sitting. If the Court was empowered to impose Central rule, then how would it examine the legal validity of its own action?

Adds Sorabjee, “The Court could have slapped a contempt notice on the State Government for flouting its orders.” As matters stand, what Justice B.N. Agarwal, heading the Supreme Court bench, stated were only “oral observations”. Unlike formal orders, these have no force in law. They were simply intended to ensure that the State respected the Court’s orders. Fortunately, the observations had the desired effect when these were flashed by the TV channels by 1.30 pm. Karunanidhi hurriedly called off his hunger strike and post haste returned to the Secretariat with his brood in tow. But the bandh had already done its damage. Chennai was virtually paralysed and the aam aadmi helplessly harassed.

If the happenings in Tamil Nadu were unprecedented, cut to Delhi numero uno road --- Parliament Street. Heavily barricaded with baton-wielding policemen, fire engines and police vans, it stands vandalized every other day by slogan-shouting masses protesting about something or the other. Time and again, punctuated by the bursting of tear-gas shells and water cannon volleys. The cause is immaterial. It is all about registering ones protest, the louder the better. Success is measured in terms of causing maximum dislocation and discomfiture to the people at large. Bringing work to a standstill in the prime business district with the entry-exit points repeatedly sealed.

The havoc is not limited to New Delhi. In Kerala last year alone, Kochi was shut down for 11 days, the State Capital, Thiruvananthapuram, for 19 and Thrissur lost 59 days to hartals. And, there has been no let-up this year. In fact, no day passes without a strike somewhere. Be it a mohalla, district or State. The story is the same.

Tragically, India has travelled a long way from Lokmanya Tilak’s “swaraj is my birth right” to “strikes is my birth right” Today, every other section of the society plans strikes as a matter of routine. Bringing things to such a pass that it is like living life between strikes. Be it labour strikes, political protests or chakka jams which bring life to a standstill, replete with violence, mayhem, deaths et al. Curse all you want, it is for a cause, remember.

Part of the current paradox is explained by the changed notion of strikes aka hartal aka bandh as a form of protest. The original concept was centred on the logic that the only way for a group of disempowered people to shake the system was to agitate. From a simple gherao for more wages to a voluntary hartal against policy decisions. But slowly perversion set in. A strike could be effective only if stoppage of work could not be overcome easily by the system. Therefore, the strikers use their power base, including violence, to stall anything that spells change from the set routine. Never mind that in the long run it is detrimental for the country and the people.

Recall, in August 2003, the Supreme Court had expressed its anguish over strikes. Upholding the Kerala and Calcutta High Courts’ judgments declaring bandhs as “illegal and unconstitutional way of collective bargaining”, it had ruled, that Government employees had no “fundamental, legal, moral or equitable right” to go on strikes whatever the cause, “just or unjust”. Pointing out that aggrieved employees had other options available to them, the Bench opined: Strikes as a weapon is mostly misused, which results in chaos and total maladministration.

Adding: “In a democracy, government employees are part and parcel of the governing body and have a duty to society. They cannot hold society to ransom.” To buttress its contention, the Court observed: “The law on this subject is well settled and even a very liberal interpretation of Article 19 (Freedom of Expression) cannot lead to a conclusion that trade unions have a fundamental, guaranteed right to an effective collective bargaining or to strike either as part of collective bargaining or otherwise.”

The Apex Court’s judgment also upheld the Kerala Court’s distinction between a hartal and a bandh. It held that a hartal was a form of passive resistance and a call for it did not involve force. However, a bandh was an enforced muscle flexing act which interfered with the freedom of citizens. A bandh call might completely halt locomotion and, as a result, involve life and property, particularly of those who attempt to go against the strike call.

Trust our “law abiding” netagan to circumvent the Court’s ruling. They simply replaced their call for bandh by hartal. To plug this loophole, the Supreme Court and the Kerala High Court, yet again directed the Election Commission to entertain complaints seeking de-recognition of political parties that called for hartals by “force, intimidation --- physical or mental --- and coercion was unconstitutional”. They even imposed a fine on holding of bandhs and hartals. (The Bombay High Court ordered the Shiv Sena and BJP to pay Rs.20 lakh each to compensate for losses incurred during a bandh organized by them in 2003). Predictably, this led to a political uproar. Nothing more, nothing less.

Unfortunately, our polity fails to realize that strikes negate the basic concept of democracy. They are just a camouflage for non-performance, self-glorification, to gain sympathy or wriggle out of working hard. Some old hands at the game admit that the exercise is to flex their might and muscle to show-off their strength. And if one is a bandh regular, other parties actually start believing that you have the might and the muscle. Ignoring that it all boils down to what you are willing to spend on renting a crowd and giving it a free trip. All issues evoke the same bystanders who are more interested in a jagha darshan, the money and the food packets. The net result? Zilch. 

Clearly, the time has come to take a leaf out of the US law, wherein there is no constitutional right to make a speech on a highway or near about, so as to cause a crowd to gather and obstruct the highway. The right to assembly is to be so exercised as not to conflict with other lawful rights, interests and comfort of the individual or the public and public order. Also, the municipality has the power to impose regulations in order to assure the safety and convenience of the people. And the power to break up a meeting if the speaker undertakes incitement to riot or breach of peace.

In the UK, the Public Order Act, 1936 makes it an offence for any person in uniform to attend any public meeting, signifying his association with any political organization. The Prevention of Crime Act, 1953, makes it an offence to carry any weapon in any ‘public place’ without lawful authority. The Seditious Meeting Act, 1817 prohibits meetings of more than 50 persons within a mile of Westminster Hall during the sitting of Parliament.

In sum, in a milieu wherein adoption of strong-arm tactics to extract one’s pound of flesh has become our second nature, it is time to cry a halt to the political nautankis and strikes. The Tamil Nadu bandh has exposed how dangerous this game has become. No longer can we simply dismiss strikes and hartals as a system’s failure. The right of the citizen is paramount. How long will this chalta hai attitude persist. With each shrugging his shoulders and asserting ki pharak painda hai.  Time now to call a bandh against hypocritical parties and our moribund State. What do you say? ---- INFA

(ICopyright, India News and Feature Alliance)